Record details

Origin of report

Country

Rwanda

Contact officer for report

Coordinates

Dr. Rose MUKANKOMEJE

Director General

Rwanda Environment Management Authority ((REMA))

P.O. BOX 7436

Kigali, Kigali

Rwanda

Phone:	(+250)252 580 101
Fax:	(+250)252 580 017
Email:	remainfo@gmail.com

Consulted stakeholders

9. Organizations/stakeholders who were consulted or participated in the preparation of this report

MINIRENA, MINAGRI, MINEDUC, REMA, NUR, KIST, KIE, KHI, ISAE, REMA, RDB Tourism and Conservation, RBS, RAB, EWSA, RBC, NAEB Coffee and Tea), IRST, PSF, EPI, UNDP, WB, WFP, FAO), USAID, SIDA, WCS, CARPE, BRALIRWA, INYANGE INDUSTRIES, NYABISINDU DAIRY.

Submission

10. Date of submission

2011-10-26

11. Time period covered by this report

Start date

2007-09-01

Time period covered by this report

End date

2011-08-31

Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

12. Is your country a Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB)?

Article 2 – General provisions

15. Has your country introduced the necessary legal, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the Protocol?

A domestic regulatory framework is fully in place

16. Which specific instruments are in place for the implementation of your national biosafety framework?

One or more national biosafety laws
Other laws, regulations or guidelines that indirectly apply to biosafety

17. Has your country established a mechanism for the budgetary allocations of funds for the operation of its national biosafety framework?

18. Does your country have permanent staff to administer functions directly related to the national biosafety framework?

19. If you answered Yes to question 18, how many permanent staff members are in place whose functions are directly related to the national biosafety framework?

20. Has your country’s biosafety framework / laws / regulations / guidelines been submitted to the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH)?

21. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 2 in your country:

Rwanda has National Biosafety Framework with Biosafety guidelines, Policy and Law. The Biosafety Policy and Law are in draft form. They need to be updated and will then be submitted to the Parliament for approval.
- The National Biosafety Policy, which highlights how biotechnology fits in the national development framework, and the legal and administrative mechanisms required for biotechnology and biosafety development in Rwanda;
- The National Biosafety Bill and the Guidelines which operationalises the policy, and provides a regulatory regime for ensuring that biotechnology developments in the country are safe for human health, the environment and the economy;
-Institutional Framework, spelling out the responsibilities and mandates of stakeholder institutions, and the human resource requirements, for effective implementation of the policy and legal instruments, such as notifications and authorizations; risk assessment and management; enforcement and monitoring; biosafety information management; and public awareness. ]

Article 5 – Pharmaceuticals

22. Does your country regulate the transboundary movement, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) which are pharmaceuticals?

23. If you answered Yes to question 22, has this information been submitted to the BCH?

24. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 5 in your country:

The Organic Law N° 04/2005 of 08/04/2005 determining the modalities of protection, conservation and promotion of environment in Rwanda, especially the article 20 which provides for special legislation regarding the introduction, importation and exportation of plant and animal species as well as article 41 which guarantees a right of every person in Rwanda to a healthy environment and ecosystem protection. For pharmeceutical handling, the RS 109-4:2006, Part 4 of Rwanda Standards applies on Inspection Quality assurance of pharmaceuticals-good manufacturing practices and nspection.

Article 6 – Transit and Contained use

25. Does your country regulate the transit of LMOs?

26. Does your country regulate the contained use of LMOs?

27. If you answered Yes to questions 25 or 26, has this information been submitted to the BCH?

28. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 6 in your country:

The regulation of transit and contained use of LMOs is provided for in the existing regulatory framework for precautional measures. However at the practical level, no case was handled during this reporting period.

Articles 7 to 10 – Advance Informed Agreement (AIA) and intentional introduction of LMOs into the environment

29. Has your country adopted law(s) / regulations / administrative measures for the operation of the AIA procedure of the Protocol?

30. Has your country adopted a domestic regulatory framework consistent with the Protocol regarding the transboundary movement of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?

31. Has your country established a mechanism for taking decisions regarding first intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?

32. If you answered Yes to question 31, does the mechanism also apply to cases of intentional introduction of LMOs into the environment that were not subject to transboundary movement?

33. Has your country established a mechanism for monitoring potential effects of LMOs that are released into the environment?

34. Does your country have the capacity to detect and identify LMOs?

Yes, to some extent

35. Has your country established legal requirements for exporters under its jurisdiction to notify in writing the competent national authority of the Party of import prior to the intentional transboundary movement of an LMO that falls within the scope of the AIA procedure?

36. Has your country established legal requirements for the accuracy of information contained in the notification?

37. Has your country ever received an application / notification regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?

38. Has your country ever taken a decision on an application / notification regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?

Not applicable

39. If you answered Yes to question 38, how many LMOs has your country approved to date for import for intentional introduction into the environment?

Not applicable

40. If you answered Yes to question 38, how many LMOs, not imported, has your country approved to date for intentional introduction into the environment?

Not applicable

41. In the current reporting period, how many applications/notifications has your country received regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?

None

42. In the current reporting period, how many decisions has your country taken regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?

None

50. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Articles 7-10 in your country, including measures in case of lack of scientific certainty on potential adverse effects of LMOs for intentional introduction to the environment:

To regulate the intentional introduction of LMOs into the environment, Rwanda has put in place a ministerial order determining the modalities of importation of animals. Regarding application and notification on transboundary movements of LMOs, there was any official application from any party. The treated cases were informal. These cases often involved a smal number of individuals and organizations who were looking for information. They were always given accurate information in accordance with the existing and applicable policy, legal and regulatory framework.

Article 11 – Procedure for living modified organisms intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (LMOs-FFP)

51. Has your country adopted specific law(s) or regulation(s) for decision-making regarding domestic use, including placing on the market, of LMOs-FFP?

52. Has your country established legal requirements for the accuracy of information to be provided by the applicant?

53. Has your country established a mechanism to ensure that decisions regarding LMOs-FFP that may be subject to transboundary movement will be communicated to the Parties through the BCH?

54. Has your country established a mechanism for taking decisions on the import of LMOs-FFP?

55. Has your country declared through the BCH that in the absence of a regulatory framework its decisions prior to the first import of an LMO-FFP will be taken according to Article 11.6 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety?

56. Has your country indicated its needs for financial and technical assistance and capacity building in respect of LMOs-FFP?

57. Has your country ever taken a decision on LMOs-FFP (either on import or domestic use)?

63. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 11 in your country, including measures in case of lack of scientific certainty on potential adverse effects of LMOs-FFP:

The Organic Law N° 04/2005 of 08/04/2005 determining the modalities of protection, conservation and promotion of environment in Rwanda, especially the Article 54, 78 and 94, has rovisions for implementation of this Article. The article 54, stipulates that the State shall establish the list of the following:
1° species of animals and plants that shall be protected depending on their role in ecosystems, their scarcity, their aesthetic value, their extinction as well as their economic, cultural and scientific role. The list shall be established by an order of the Minister having environment in his or her attributions;
2° historical sites and protected installations and the strategies that may be taken for the pro-tection of national architectural, historical and cultural heritage. Such a list is established by an order of the Minister having tourism in his or her attributions.

Article 12 – Review of decision

64. Has your country established a mechanism for the review and change of a decision regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?

65. Has your country ever received a request for a review of a decision?

66. Has your country ever reviewed / changed a decision regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?

67. In the current reporting period, how many decisions were reviewed and/or changed regarding an intentional transboundary movement of an LMO?

None

71. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 12 in your country:

No case was received or treated on this article during this reporting period.

Article 13 – Simplified procedure

72. Has your country established a system for the application of the simplified procedure regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?

73. Has your country ever applied the simplified procedure?

75. In the current reporting period, how many LMOs has your country applied the simplified procedure to?

None

76. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 13 in your country:

No case was handled during this reporting period.

Article 14 – Bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements and arrangements

77. Has your country entered into any bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements or arrangements?

78. If you answered Yes to question 77, has your country informed the Parties through the BCH of the agreements or arrangements?

79. If you answered Yes to question 77, please provide a brief description of the scope and objective of the agreements or arrangements entered into:

Rwanda belongs to different organizations: CEPGL, EAC, COMESA. Members States of the EAC have an Environment Protocol which covers all aspects related to the environment in general and Biosafety. The COMESA treaty calls for member states to among others: establish a customs union; and simplify and harmonize their trade documents and procedures. Key priorities for COMESA in consolidating its strategic objectives include implementing major programs in infrastructure, trade and agriculture. The importance of regional cooperation in harnessing the technology safely and responsibly and handling of other GMO related issues is evident from the experience of other global regional blocs. In cognizance of this reality, COMESA endorsed in 2003 the implementation of the RABESA initiative (Regional Approach to Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy in Eastern and Southern Africa) which has the objective of supporting harmonization of biosafety policies among its member states.

Article 15 – Risk assessment

81. Has your country established a mechanism for conducting risk assessments prior to taking decisions regarding LMOs?

82. If you answered Yes to question 81, does this mechanism include procedures for identifying experts to conduct the risk assessments?

83. Has your country established guidelines for how to conduct risk assessments prior to taking decisions regarding LMOs?

84. Has your country acquired the necessary domestic capacity to conduct risk assessment?

85. Has your country established a mechanism for training national experts to conduct risk assessments?

86. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO for intentional introduction into the environment?

87. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing?

88. If your country has taken decision(s) on LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment or on domestic use of LMOs-FFP, were risk assessments conducted for all decisions taken?

Not applicable

89. Has your country submitted summary reports of the risk assessments to the BCH?

Not applicable

90. In the current reporting period, if your country has taken decisions regarding LMOs, how many risk assessments were conducted in the context of these decisions?

None

91. Has your country ever required the exporter to conduct the risk assessment(s)?

Not applicable

92. Has your country ever required the notifier to bear the cost of the risk assessment(s) of LMOs?

Not applicable

93. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 15 in your country:

Risk assessment shall be undertaken on a case-by-case basis and any approval shall specify the step-by-step sequences. Exemptions will be at the discretion of the NCA determines but relate to cases where there is reasonable ground to believe that the risks posed to the environment and human health are minimal (article 19, article 22).
The NCA shall not take any decision on any GMO applications without assessment of risks to the environment, biodiversity and human health, and this shall be undertaken in accordance with the Schedule II of the National Biosafety Bill (article 19, para i)

Article 16 – Risk management

94. Has your country established and maintained appropriate and operational mechanisms, measures and strategies to regulate, manage and control risks identified in risk assessments for:

94.1) LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?

94.2) LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing?

95. Has your country established and maintained appropriate measures to prevent unintentional transboundary movements of LMOs?

96. Has your country taken measures to ensure that any LMO, whether imported or locally developed, undergoes an appropriate period of observation that is commensurate with its life-cycle or generation time before it is put to its intended use?

97. Has your country cooperated with other Parties with a view to identifying LMOs or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity?

98. Has your country cooperated with other Parties with a view to taking measures regarding the treatment of LMOs or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity?

99. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 16 in your country, including any details regarding risk management strategies, also in case of lack of scientific certainty on potential adverse effects of LMOs:

The GMO applications shall not be approved unless the NCA is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that such a GMO in question poses manageable risks. Applicants shall, in this case, be required to provide a plan with sufficient proof of how they would manage the risks identified. No approval shall be given for applications where there is reasonable indication that such GMOs pose unmanageable risks to the environment, biodiversity and human health (article 22, para vi of the National Biosafety Bill).

Article 17 – Unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures

100. Has your country made available to the BCH the relevant details setting out its point of contact for the purposes of receiving notifications under Article 17?

101. Has your country established a mechanism for addressing emergency measures in case of unintentional transboundary movements of LMOs that are likely to have significant adverse effect on biological diversity?

102. Has your country implemented emergency measures in response to information about releases that led, or may have led, to unintentional transboundary movements of LMOs?

103. In the current reporting period, how many times has your country received information concerning occurrences that led, or may have led, to unintentional transboundary movement(s) of one or more LMOs to or from territories under its jurisdiction?

Never

107. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 17 in your country:

There was no case on unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures during this reporting period

Article 18 – Handling, transport, packaging and identification

108. Has your country taken measures to require that LMOs that are subject to transboundary movement are handled, packaged and transported under conditions of safety, taking into account relevant international rules and standards?

109. Has your country taken measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs-FFP clearly identifies that, in cases where the identity of the LMOs is not known through means such as identity preservation systems, they may contain living modified organisms and are not intended for intentional introduction into the environment, as well as a contact point for further information?

110. Has your country taken measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs-FFP clearly identifies that, in cases where the identity of the LMOs is known through means such as identity preservation systems, they contain living modified organisms and are not intended for intentional introduction into the environment, as well as a contact point for further information?

111. Has your country taken measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs that are destined for contained use clearly identifies them as living modified organisms and specifies any requirements for the safe handling, storage, transport and use, the contact point for further information, including the name and address of the individual and institution to whom the LMO are consigned?

112. Has your country taken measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs that are intended for intentional introduction into the environment of the Party of import, clearly identifies them as living modified organisms; specifies the identity and relevant traits and/or characteristics, any requirements for the safe handling, storage, transport and use, the contact point for further information and, as appropriate, the name and address of the importer and exporter; and contains a declaration that the movement is in conformity with the requirements of this Protocol applicable to the exporter?

113. Does your country have the capacity to enforce the requirements of identification and documentation of LMOs?

Yes, to some extent

114. Has your country established procedures for the sampling and detection of LMOs?

115. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 18 in your country:

There was no notification, application nor documentation on handling, packaging and identification of LMOs during this reporting period

Article 19 – Competent National Authorities and National Focal Points

116. Has your country designated one national focal point for the Cartagena Protocol to be responsible for liaison with the Secretariat?

117. Has your country designated one national focal point for the Biosafety Clearing-House to liaise with the Secretariat regarding issues of relevance to the development and implementation of the BCH?

118. Has your country designated one or more competent national authorities, which are responsible for performing the administrative functions required by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and are authorized to act on your country’s behalf with respect to those functions?

Yes, one

120. Has your country made available the required information referred in questions 116-119 to the BCH?

Yes, all information

122. Has your country established adequate institutional capacity to enable the competent national authority(ies) to perform the administrative functions required by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety?

123. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 19 in your country:

Rwanda Environment Management Authority (REMA) is a designated National Competent Authority. Rwanda has designated a National Focal Point for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the BCH.

Article 20 – Information Sharing and the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH)

124. Please provide an overview of the status of the information provided by your country to the BCH by specifying for each category of information whether it is available and whether it has been submitted to the BCH.

124.a) Existing national legislation, regulations and guidelines for implementing the Protocol, as well as information required by Parties for the advance informed agreement procedure (Article 20, paragraph 3 (a))

Information available but not in the BCH

124.b) National laws, regulations and guidelines applicable to the import of LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (Article 11, paragraph 5)

Information available but not in the BCH

124.c) Bilateral, multilateral and regional agreements and arrangements (Articles 14, paragraph 2 and 20, paragraph 3 (b))

Information available but not in the BCH

124.d) Contact details for competent national authorities (Article 19, paragraphs 2 and 3), national focal points (Article 19, paragraphs 1 and 3), and emergency contacts (Article 17, paragraph 3 (e))

Information available but not in the BCH

124.e) Reports submitted by the Parties on the operation of the Protocol (Article 20, paragraph 3 (e))

Information available but not in the BCH

124.f) Decisions by a Party on regulating the transit of specific living modified organisms (LMOs) (Article 6, paragraph 1)

Information not available

124.g) Occurrence of unintentional transboundary movements that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity (Article 17, paragraph 1)

Information not available

124.h) Illegal transboundary movements of LMOs (Article 25, paragraph 3)

Information not available

124.i) Final decisions regarding the importation or release of LMOs (i.e. approval or prohibition, any conditions, requests for further information, extensions granted, reasons for decision) (Articles 10, paragraph 3 and 20, paragraph 3(d))

Information not available

124.j) Information on the application of domestic regulations to specific imports of LMOs (Article 14, paragraph 4)

Information available but not in the BCH

124.k) Final decisions regarding the domestic use of LMOs that may be subject to transboundary movement for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (Article 11, paragraph 1)

Information not available

124.l) Final decisions regarding the import of LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing that are taken under domestic regulatory frameworks (Article 11, paragraph 4) or in accordance with annex III (Article 11, paragraph 6) (requirement of Article 20, paragraph 3(d))

Information not available

124.m) Declarations regarding the framework to be used for LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (Article 11, paragraph 6)

Information not available

124.n) Review and change of decisions regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs (Article 12, paragraph 1)

Information not available

124.o) LMOs granted exemption status by each Party (Article 13, paragraph 1)

Information not available

124.p) Cases where intentional transboundary movement may take place at the same time as the movement is notified to the Party of import (Article 13, paragraph 1)

Information not available

124.q) Summaries of risk assessments or environmental reviews of LMOs generated by regulatory processes and relevant information regarding products thereof (Article 20, paragraph 3 (c))

Information not available

125. Has your country established a mechanism for strengthening the capacity of the BCH National Focal Point to perform its administrative functions?

126. Has your country established a mechanism for the coordination among the BCH National Focal Point, the Cartagena Protocol focal point, and the competent national authority(ies) for making information available to the BCH?

127. Does your country use the information available in the BCH in its decision making processes on LMOs?

Yes, always

128. Has your country experienced difficulties accessing or using the BCH?

129. If you answered Yes to question 128, has your country reported these problems to the BCH or the Secretariat?

130. Is the information submitted by your country to the BCH complete and up-to date?

131. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 20 in your country:

In the BCH system, there is no provided information from Rwanda. Two reasons explain the situation: The BCH is not filled with information as it is missing in many cases. The other reason was reported to be the lack of funds so as to generate information. Moreover, the li-mited access to internet and the poor connectivity are cited to be challenging.

Article 21 – Confidential information

132. Has your country established procedures to protect confidential information received under the Protocol?

133. Does your country allow the notifier to identify information that is to be treated as confidential?

134. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 21 in your country:

The provision of this article has not yet been implemented during this reporting period

Article 22 – Capacity-building

135. Has your country received external support or benefited from collaborative activities with other Parties in the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?

136. If you answered Yes to question 135, how were these resources made available?

Multilateral channels

137. Has your country provided support to other Parties in the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?

139. Is your country eligible to receive funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF)?

140. Has your country ever initiated a process to access GEF funds for building capacity in biosafety?

141. If you answered Yes to question 140, how would you characterize the process?

Please add further details about your experience in accessing GEF funds under question 150.

Average

142. Has your country ever received funding from the GEF for building capacity in biosafety?

Development of national biosafety frameworks

143. During the current reporting period, has your country undertaken activities for the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?

144. If you answered Yes to question 143, in which of the following areas were these activities undertaken?

Public awareness, participation and education in biosafety

145. During the current reporting period, has your country carried out a capacity-building needs assessment?

146. Does your country still have capacity-building needs?

147. If you answered Yes to question 146, indicate which of the following areas still need capacity-building.

Human resources capacity development and training
Risk assessment and other scientific and technical expertise
Risk management
Public awareness, participation and education in biosafety
Information exchange and data management including participation in the Biosafety Clearing-House
Scientific, technical and institutional collaboration at subregional, regional and international levels
Technology transfer
Identification of LMOs, including their detection
Socio-economic considerations
Implementation of the documentation requirements under Article 18.2 of the Protocol
Handling of confidential information
Measures to address unintentional and/or illegal transboundary movements of LMOs
Scientific biosafety research relating to LMOs
Taking into account risks to human health

148. Has your country developed a capacity-building strategy or action plan?

149. Has your country submitted the details of national biosafety experts to the Roster of Experts in the BCH?

150. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 22 in your country, including further details about your experience in accessing GEF funds:

Rwanda has capacity building needs in all the above mentioned areas. Rwanda needs to strengthen the human resource capabilities. Scientists need to be trained on LMOs identification and detection. Risk assessment and risk management are also other areas of priority. Regarding our experience accessing GEF funds, it is not difficult to access them. However, it takes a long time than expected.

Article 23 – Public awareness and participation

151. Has your country established a strategy or put in place legislation for promoting and facilitating public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs?

152. Has your country established a biosafety website?

153. Has your country established a mechanism to ensure public access to information on living modified organisms that may be imported?

154. Has your country established a mechanism to consult the public in the decision-making process regarding LMOs?

155. Has your country established a mechanism to make available to the public the results of decisions taken on LMOs?

156. Has your country taken any initiative to inform its public about the means of public access to the Biosafety Clearing-House?

157. In the current reporting period, has your country promoted and facilitated public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs?

159. In the current reporting period, how many times has your country consulted the public in the decision-making process regarding LMOs and made the results of such decisions available to the public?

Less than 5

160. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 23 in your country:

In Rwanda, needs in Public awareness and participation include promote and facilitation of public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms in relation to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health. In doing so, the Parties shall coope-rate, as appropriate, with other States and international bodies. There is also needs to ensure access to information on living modified organisms identified in accordance with this Protocol that may be imported. Rwanda has appropriate laws and regulatory framework to ensure the public information, mainstreaming and awareness.

Article 24 – Non-Parties

161. Has your country entered into any bilateral, regional, or multilateral agreement with non-Parties regarding transboundary movements of LMOs?

162. Has your country ever imported LMOs from a non-Party?

163. Has your country ever exported LMOs to a non-Party?

166. If your country is not a Party to the Cartagena Protocol, has it contributed information to the BCH on LMOs released in, or moved into, or out of, areas within its national jurisdiction?

Not applicable

167. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 24 in your country:

There was no activity undetaken under this article during this reporting period.

Article 25 – Illegal transboundary movements

168. Has your country adopted domestic measures aimed at preventing and/or penalizing transboundary movements of LMOs carried out in contravention of its domestic measures to implement this Protocol?

169. Has your country established a strategy for detecting illegal transboundary movements of LMOs?

170. In the current reporting period, how many times has your country received information concerning cases of illegal transboundary movements of an LMO to or from territories under its jurisdiction?

Never

175. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 25 in your country:

In Rwanda, illegal transboundary movements are addressed and covered by the existing Or-ganic Law N° 04/2005 of 08/04/2005 determining the modalities of protection, conservation and promotion of environment in Rwanda. Its Article 20 stipulates that the introduction, importation and exportation of any animal or any plant of any specie in Rwanda are governed by special rules.There are also ad hoc ministerial orders to regulate the import of plants and animals.

During this reporting period, there was no cases addressed or handled to the Competent national Authority.

Article 26 – Socio-economic considerations

176. If your country has taken a decision on import, has it ever taken into account socio-economic considerations arising from the impact of the LMO on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity?

Not applicable

177. Has your country cooperated with other Parties on research and information exchange on any socio-economic impacts of LMOs?

178. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 26 in your country:

The provisions under this article are well addressed in the national legal and regulatory framework. However, there are no tangible application cases as the country is not reputed to be a GMOs practitioner.

Article 27 – Liability and Redress

179. Has your country signed the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress?

180. Has your country initiated steps towards ratification, acceptance or approval of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol?

181. Here you may provide further details on any activities undertaken in your country towards the implementation of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress:

The Liability and Redress is understood under the principle of polluter pays in the National Environment Policy (2003). Understood that, everyone should be hold accountable for his / her actions and damages they can cause to the environment and to the human life.
The ratification of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on liability and Redress. Within the near future, the concept paper will be sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the Ministry having environment in its attribution.

Article 33 – Monitoring and reporting

182. Has your country submitted the previous national reports (Interim and First National Reports)?

Yes, First report only

Other information

184. Please use this field to provide any other information on issues related to national implementation of the Protocol, including any obstacles or impediments encountered.

With regards to the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the major obstacle is the lack of adequate financial resourses. In facts, the limited financial resources is the challenge while the country needs to strengthen its human capacity and regulatory biosafety framework.

Comments on reporting format

185. Please use this field to provide any other information on difficulties that you have encountered in filling in this report.

This format is comprehensive and exhausts all articles of the Protocol. However, it has a lot of questions. Some of the questions may look like repetition to others. It requires concentration. Therefore, in order to fill in it doroughly with precision, it has taken more time than the planned.